Privacy Rights Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

In mainstream America, there is a cherished belief that everyone has a right to privacy. Most Americans believe that their home is their castle, and that it cannot be invaded. Unfortunately, many commonly held beliefs concerning a right to privacy are usually not based in reality. Indeed, the legal and political aspects of the scope of the right to privacy are still not settled.

Constitutional, Civil, And Criminal Law

Neither the Declaration of Independence, nor the U.S. Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights expressly recognize or mention “a right to privacy.” However, such a right to privacy is implied in the Fourth Amendment, which provides protection against unreasonable seizures or searches of the people, their homes, their property, and their papers. In the famous U.S. Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which concerned the privacy rights of married couples—specifically, to purchase contraceptives—the right of privacy was formally recognized as based in the penumbra of the Bill of Rights and the Ninth Amendment, which explains that other widely recognized fundamental rights not explicitly written in the Bill of Rights are nevertheless to be protected.

In tort law, which is the law of civil wrongs opposed to criminal wrongs, there are four aspects of privacy. These aspects are: (1) publication of private facts, such as personal sexual practices; (2) placing a person in a false light, by publishing information that would damage their reputation; (3) invading a private space, such as trespassing in a person’s house; and (4) appropriation of another person’s identity. In any of these instances, a person may sue another person for invading personal privacy.

Also, there are a number of statutes that provide for the privacy of certain information about a person. These statutes include but are not limited to: the Privacy Act of 1974, limiting the government’s authority to maintain and disseminate records concerning individuals; the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), which limits access to a student’s educational records; and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), which limits the release of a person’s medical information. However, there are numerous exceptions to many of these statutory privacy protections for such purposes as law enforcement, which can have a significant impact on political expectations of privacy.

Technology And Politics

Technology also reduces the right of privacy of individuals. Government monitoring of computers and their use raises serious privacy issues. In the United States, the government’s use of data mining programs such as CARNIVORE and TIA (Total Information Awareness) to mine the Internet for intelligence caused a serious public outcry. It is generally accepted that the U.S. National Security Agency monitors e-mails for certain keywords that might indicate terrorist activity. With the use of highly specialized technological equipment, the government can learn what is happening behind closed doors. For example, the use of certain night vision scopes can reveal otherwise private activity. In the case of Kyllo v. U.S. (2001), the Supreme Court required that a search warrant be obtained before using such equipment on a home.

In the context of politics, privacy is of enormous importance as an essential safeguard to prevent improper interference in political activities. Two of the more infamous examples of political interference in American politics by the violation of another person’s privacy are the illegal surveillance activities by the FBI of the civil rights movement in the 1950s through the 1970s, called COINTELPRO, and the Watergate burglary to gain politically damaging information relative to the Democratic Party in the 1970s during the Nixon administration. Further, many historians recognize repeated invasions of privacy during the anticommunist political hysteria during the 1950s known as the “red scare,” when Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin conducted congressional hearings against suspected Communists, a “witch hunt” that destroyed the lives of many American citizens.

Within the context of politics, there is the problem of drawing a line between legitimate political activities, which should be protected by a right of privacy and illegal terroristic activities, which are usually prohibited by law. Depending upon the nature of the political and legal system within which the issue of privacy is examined, widely divergent perspectives result. For example, in many autocratic, fascist, or tyrannical systems, any dissent or opposition is considered a crime and is granted no right of privacy. In contrast, in most free political systems, dissent and political opposition is usually tolerated, even if there are aberrations such as COINTELPRO and Watergate. In these systems, political privacy interests are given some protection.

However, depending upon political events, any political privacy is frequently sacrificed for the sake of expediency. For example, after the attacks on September 11, 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act was swiftly enacted through the U.S. Congress. This law significantly reduced the rights of privacy previously enjoyed by U.S. citizens. The law became more permissive in allowing the government to intrude into the private lives of its citizens, including the ability to examine what books were being read, by whom, at libraries and bookstores. Telephone monitoring by the government was also more easily approved, and it was much easier to detain people only suspected of being connected with terroristic activity.

Conclusion

Privacy is also a serious concern internationally. Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in contrast to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, specifically recognizes a right to privacy. Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights also guarantees the right of privacy. In the context of politics, individual and political privacy is an essential requirement for a free society. However, it is problematic to draw the line between vigorous political privacy and prohibited criminal activity deserving of no privacy.

Bibliography:

American Bar Association. “Section on Individual Rights and Responsibilities.” Report on the National Symposium on Personal Privacy and Information. American Bar Association, 1981.
Belfrage, Cedric. American Inquisition. Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill, 1973.
Churchill, Ward, and Jim Vander Wall. The COINTELPRO Papers: Documents from the FBI’s Secret War against Domestic Dissent. Boston: South End Press, 1990.
DeCew, Judith W. In Pursuit of Privacy: Law, Ethics, and the Rise of Technology. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997.
Obee, Mary Jo, and Wm. C. Plouffe Jr. “Privacy in the Federal Bankruptcy Courts” Notre Dame Journal of Law and Public Policy 14 (2000): 1011.
Rubenfeld, Jed. “The Right of Privacy.” Harvard Law Review 102 (1989): 737–752.
Schoeman, David S., ed. Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Warren, Samuel and Louis, Brandeis. “The Right to Privacy.” Harvard Law Review 4 (1980): 193.
Westin, Alan F. Privacy and Freedom. New York: Atheneum, 1967.
White,Theodore H. Breach of Faith:The Fall of Richard Nixon. New York: Atheneum, 1975.

This example Privacy Rights Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.